|
|
| Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question (1396559) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1396866) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 22 20:27:06 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 22 20:19:24 2016. That's my favorite debate. :) |
|
|
| (1396873) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 22 22:31:30 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Merrick1 on Sun May 22 07:50:59 2016. Thats comical.They May say That..but when they come begging for money..they are just like everyone else in need. |
|
|
| (1396875) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun May 22 22:47:27 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun May 22 17:39:39 2016. if only... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1396876) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun May 22 22:52:54 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Sun May 22 14:39:53 2016. Agree with you as well. S4 was built/ designed to be a major junction, one of the "lynchpins" of the second phase; and well, almost all of those routes in the 1929 plan would need to be built for S4 to have any value. |
|
|
| (1396879) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 22 23:14:04 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 22 20:15:17 2016. As you can see...that area is teeming with people and businesses.If there was a service available,you could be certain it would be heavily used... First,the SAS would most definitely drain the traffic off the Lexington avenue subway..establish another connection to lower Manhattan..and kill several key bottlenecks hampering services. The Lower Manhattan Access study outlined the critical needs,before it was "highjacked" by the LIRR-JFK AIRPORT study,that went no where. A rail station located There will fill a void,one that has been promised for years,for people west,east and south,regardless of the other stations in proximity. |
|
|
| (1396881) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 22 23:31:14 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Express Rider on Sun May 22 22:52:54 2016. Not exactly true.One particular route Should have been built and could have sustained the line without issue. The Utica avenue route,then as well as today,would serve several transit starved neighborhood extremely well. |
|
|
| (1396882) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon May 23 00:14:37 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 22 23:31:14 2016. You are right about that, thanks. Utica ave. - the passenger volume has always been there, and the trunk line, directly east from S4 to Utica, would have been steadily patronized as well. |
|
|
| (1396885) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon May 23 01:41:30 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Sun May 22 14:39:53 2016. Today..the Only possible way this shell could be used is if its construction includes deep bore tunnels under the Lindsey Houses and directly to Utica avenue.Obviously,if this was the case,the shell shouldn't be used at all. Since most of Brooklyn,at leadt close to the surface is soil,and Not bedrock...a ETBM would be used. |
|
|
| (1396905) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Mon May 23 13:16:16 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by AlM on Sat May 21 20:12:09 2016. Yes. Astor Pl. and Stuyvesant St. were part of the same road, and there was a cemetery about where Washington Square park is now. In addition, a skewed building still exists between E. 12th and E. 13th Sts. just east of 1st Av. The road continued all the way to the river across what is now Stuyvesant Town. See extreme right center of the link.http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/?z=9&p=988982,205254&c=GIS2012 |
|
|
| (1396906) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 23 13:31:13 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by GIS Man on Mon May 23 13:16:16 2016. Thanks. The location of the church always made me think it was a pre grid street but the diagonal building "hidden" in the 13th to 14th block nails it. |
|
|
| (1396907) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Mon May 23 13:37:41 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 20 13:14:09 2016. Or 7th Avenue South until the West Side IRT.However, at some point construction is so deep that the shield method was used over cut-and-cover. The Steinway Tunnels pass the Queens shoreline around 49th Ave, but then cut across to 50th Ave before Vernon-Jackson. However, the tunnel is clearly quite shallow at Schermerhorn/Court. |
|
|
| (1396911) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Mon May 23 14:03:43 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 20 16:41:19 2016. That's very interesting. I had never heard of those plans.The Court Street BMT platform extends from a bit west of Clinton Street to just about Court Street. Would the connection split off just before the station? |
|
|
| (1396974) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Mon May 23 22:56:16 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 22 20:19:24 2016. North of 145th Street is upstate :) |
|
|
| (1396975) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 23 23:00:57 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by LA Scott on Mon May 23 22:56:16 2016. Could we at least settle for some arbitrary location that's on the actual mainland of the United States? ;) |
|
|
| (1396977) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 23 23:02:35 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 23 23:00:57 2016. I think I-84 would be a reasonable border. |
|
|
| (1396984) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 23 23:25:58 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 23 23:02:35 2016. Getting warmer! :) |
|
|
| (1396985) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 23 23:26:21 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 23 23:02:35 2016. Everyone knows the border is between the Bronx and Yonkers. |
|
|
| (1397025) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 24 14:20:24 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by GIS Man on Mon May 23 13:16:16 2016. Is Washington Mews and McDougal Alley part of the same old road? |
|
|
| (1397051) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 24 18:30:08 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 24 14:20:24 2016. I believe they were. |
|
|
| (1397052) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 24 18:31:26 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 24 14:20:24 2016. I doubt that either of those were part of any old road. |
|
|
| (1397053) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 24 18:35:54 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 24 18:31:26 2016. It was never a paved public road. |
|
|
| (1397054) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 18:43:18 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 24 14:20:24 2016. This might help:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mews So Washington Mews definitely appears to be, whilst Macdougal Alley only dates back to 1833 as a mews that was built off Macdougal then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdougal_Street |
|
|
| (1397055) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 18:45:26 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 24 18:35:54 2016. Yep, Washington Mews was a Lenape trail which connected the Hudson and the East river. |
|
|
| (1397062) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 24 20:41:53 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 24 18:35:54 2016. Source? |
|
|
| (1397064) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 24 20:42:28 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 18:43:18 2016. Interesting. Please disregard my request for a source. |
|
|
| (1397065) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 20:43:11 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 24 20:42:28 2016. No worries ... I'd probably ignore it anyway. (grin) |
|
|
| (1397069) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Tue May 24 22:16:52 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 18:45:26 2016. very, very, interesting. never knew that. |
|
|
| (1397072) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 24 22:27:46 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Express Rider on Tue May 24 22:16:52 2016. Being amongst the oldest parts of the city, the Village has some very interesting and quirky history along with some even more quirky real estate. |
|
|
| (1397251) | |
Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu May 26 12:43:13 2016, in response to Re: Schermerhorn Street Tunnel Question, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 20 16:41:19 2016. So trains going to Brooklyn through the Montague St. tunnel would have had the choice of two "Court St." stations to go to. |
|
|
| (1397294) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu May 26 22:49:57 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by randyo on Sat May 21 22:22:06 2016. True, but today, it would have been very helpful to be able to for example be able to have the (E) run past Chambers going south and maybe from there to 95th Street in place of the (R) (since back in 1966, the (E) of course was running to 179 so it would have had a yard there). If that had been done, the long-running issue that eventually forced the (R) to 71st-Continental would likely have been fixed long ago, since the (E) could have run 95th-179 via 4th Avenue local in Brooklyn and Queens Express, with in 1988 the (F) being the line that went to Jamaica Center instead of the (E). |
|
|
| (1397353) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 13:23:35 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu May 26 22:49:57 2016. You would have to cut back BMT "R" service to City Hall, if you connected the IND to the Montague tunnel. Or, do you have another "Plan" for us, Wally? |
|
|
| (1397367) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri May 27 16:53:21 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 13:23:35 2016. Or else sent the R to Astoria instead of reinstituting the W. That still would bring back the problem of getting the R rolling stock to an appropriate maintenance facility. What could be done, since the r could share fleets with the E is to have R trains needing maintenance/inspection changed over to Es at 95 St and sent to Queens for necessary work. |
|
|
| (1397372) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 17:18:16 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by randyo on Fri May 27 16:53:21 2016. It will never happen, except in Wally's World! |
|
|
| (1397373) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri May 27 18:06:13 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 17:18:16 2016. I agree. There is probably no need at this point to go to the expense of building such a connection. |
|
|
| (1397415) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat May 28 11:25:03 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 17:18:16 2016. Or Wallyworld.:) |
|
|
| (1397431) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 28 12:34:01 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by randyo on Fri May 27 18:06:13 2016. Except perhaps for flexibility,connectivity,and getting rid of a key bottleneck. |
|
|
| (1397439) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 28 13:19:58 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 28 12:34:01 2016. Would be a potentially dangerous crossover problem, if a BMT and an IND service operated at the same time. |
|
|
| (1397462) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 28 17:33:10 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 28 13:19:58 2016. Thats what they pay people to prevent. |
|
|
| (1397465) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 28 18:02:03 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by randyo on Fri May 27 16:53:21 2016. That would never happen today, but maybe if they had connected the IND to the BMT on Chruch Street 50 years ago when the WTC was being built it might have allowed the (E) to become the line to 95th Street (via the tunnel and then the 8th Avenue local before running its current route) while the (R) could have been shifted elsewhere (maybe Brighton) where it would have a yard while running to Astoria. |
|
|
| (1397466) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 28 18:03:48 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Fri May 27 13:23:35 2016. This was going back to 1966 and the time the WTC was being built and other construction was taking place. That would have been the time to have done such a connection.This would never be done now nor could it. |
|
|
| (1397487) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 28 21:53:54 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 28 13:19:58 2016. True, since the physical layout of the area would require an at grade junction like 142 St on the IRT. If the connection had been built as planned prior to unification, the south terminal for BMT trains coming from Queens would be City Hall and the Montague St tunnel would be used only by Nassau St service since the IND trains using the connection would have accessed Court St via a new tunnel built from the bellmouths S/O Whitehall. That would make the Manny B the only way that BMT trains from Bway could get to the Southern Div lines. |
|
|
| (1397489) | |
Re: Whitehall to Court Street |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 28 22:09:35 2016, in response to Re: Whitehall to Court Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 28 18:02:03 2016. If the line from Astoria were shifted to another line it would no longer be an R but would carry whatever letter that the southern Div branch line had which in the case of the Brighton would be the Q. In the scenario you cite, the rest of the BMT services would libel;y remain the same and a new IND service between Ctl and City Hall somewhat like the old EE would have to be established with a new letter possibly a broadway V or W. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
